Robert P. Rubicco: Criminal, Liar, Fraud, Daycare Operator: Table of Contents
WHITE PLAINS, NY (January 13, 2026) — A Westchester County mother has moved for a default judgment against a local childcare business and its principal, alleging they refused to refund $12,627.50 in unearned prepaid tuition after she terminated her son’s enrollment agreement.
Jana Junuz filed the motion on Nov. 24, 2025, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Westchester, under index number 67023/2024. The defendants, Anna & Jack’s Treehouse, LLC, a preschool and childcare business, and Rob Rubicco, its principal, failed to timely answer the complaint, according to court documents.
The ongoing lawsuit is before judge Robert S. Ondrovic. The next appearance date is March 13, 2026.
The lawsuit, filed Aug. 9, 2024, seeks damages for two counts of breach of contract, unjust enrichment and account stated. It centers on the defendants’ alleged refusal to return prepaid fees for services not provided after the enrollment ended in March 2024.
Junuz first enrolled her children in the defendants’ program in January 2022 under an enrollment agreement governed by the business’s policy handbook. The agreement was renewed for the 2022-2023 school year and again for 2023-2024. The court documents do not state which location Junuz enrolled her children but she was a New Rochelle resident at the time.
The 2023-2024 handbook specified monthly tuition of $3,078.30, plus a $100 surcharge for certain months, with payments due monthly. A one-month security deposit was required upon enrollment, refundable under specific conditions, including termination with 60 days’ notice.
On or about Nov. 20, 2023, Junuz prepaid $20,695.79 for tuition covering January through September 2024, exceeding the monthly payment requirement.
On March 13, 2024, Rubicco requested the temporary removal of Junuz’s son due to behavioral concerns. Junuz decided to terminate the enrollment, citing the environment’s negative impact on her child.
She inquired about the refund policy via email, and Rubicco confirmed that all prepaid funds would be refunded with 60 days’ notice. Junuz sought and received explicit confirmation that funds paid through September would be returned.
Efforts to resolve behavioral issues failed, with Rubicco demanding additional agreements, such as a care contract, as conditions for continuing services. Junuz rejected these and terminated the agreement in March 2024.
At termination, tuition for April through August 2024, totaling $12,627.50, remained unearned. On March 22, 2024, Rubicco verbally agreed via phone with Junuz’s counsel to refund the unearned amount from March onward.
Despite the agreement, the defendants refused to issue the refund without additional conditions, including a non-disparagement agreement and, later, a confession of judgment demanded April 29, 2024.
A confession of judgment is a signed affidavit under New York CPLR § 3218 where a party admits owing a specified amount and authorizes immediate court entry of judgment without notice, hearing or defenses, allowing swift enforcement like asset seizure.
This demand is atypical, as confessions are usually signed by debtors (here, the daycare owing the refund) to benefit creditors. Instead, the daycare sought Junuz’s confession, possibly to secure against potential future claims or breaches of related conditions like non-disparagement. Such a requirement may be viewed as inappropriate due to the waiver of due process rights and potential for coercion in unequal bargaining, though it remains legal under current New York law, which restricts out-of-state use but not intra-state consumer disputes. A proposed 2025 bill (S2305) to ban confessions for consumer debts passed the Senate but died in the Assembly without becoming law.
Junuz rejected these conditions as extraneous to the original contract. On May 9, 2024, she sent a formal demand for the refund, stating the account and rejecting the conditions as frivolous. Rubicco acknowledged the amount but insisted on the non-disparagement clause.
Junuz alleges the defendants provided services only through March 2024, unjustly retaining the prepaid funds for subsequent months.
The summons and complaint were filed Aug. 9, 2024. The complaint was served on Anna & Jack’s Treehouse, LLC, and Rob Rubicco on Sept. 24, 2024.
Post-service, the parties engaged in discussions. On Nov. 7, 2024, Junuz notified the defendants of their default. The defendants retained counsel Jeffrey M. Schwartz, and Junuz agreed to extend the answer deadline to Feb. 12, 2025.
The defendants filed a verified answer on Feb. 26, 2025, denying most allegations and lacking knowledge of others. Junuz rejected it as untimely on March 12, 2025. The defendants did not move to compel acceptance.
Pursuant to CPLR § 3215(g), an additional notice of the default motion was mailed on Nov. 20, 2025.
The motion for default judgment, supported by the affirmation of counsel Jared K. Cook and Junuz’s affidavit sworn Nov. 24, 2025, argues that the defendants’ default admits liability, with proof of service, facts, default and damages provided.
The complaint asserts four causes of action, each seeking $12,627.50 in damages.
- For breach of enrollment contract, the defendants breached by refusing to refund unearned prepaid tuition after termination per the handbook’s terms.
- For breach of termination agreement, the defendants breached a separate agreement formed via email and verbal confirmations to refund the unearned amount.
- For unjust enrichment, the defendants were enriched by retaining $12,627.50 for services not rendered, at Junuz’s expense, against equity and good conscience.
- For account stated, the defendants acknowledged the owed amount but failed to pay, with no valid basis for conditioning payment on extraneous agreements.
The motion for default cites CPLR § 3215, providing proof of service, facts via affidavit and admitted allegations, default via counsel’s affirmation, and notice.
The requested relief includes declaration of default against Anna & Jack’s Treehouse, LLC, though Rubicco is also named; judgment for $12,627.50 plus costs and disbursements; and joint and several liability against both defendants.
NOTE: as this is an ongoing case, we will monitor the court records and provide updates as appropriate.
Email Exchange Exhibits
This article was drafted with the aid of Grok, an AI tool by xAI, under the direction and editing of Robert Cox to ensure accuracy and adherence to journalistic standards.
Discover more from Talk of the Sound
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.